New rumor?

[YoHo]

I like to try and think of these things in terms of industries that I am currently, or have worked in. From that perspective, I think Disney currently is similar to AMD pre-Athlon (for those of you that are PC NErds) Prior to Athlon, Amd made inferior or at best equivelent rpoduct to Intel, They tried to Market themselves into a better position then they actually had.

The Athlon represented a product that needed no marketing. It was simply designed top to bottom better then Intel's chips. Now with the exception of a siungle product here or there, Athlon represents the cutting edge of the market due to their dedication to the product not due to their marketing. Their improving sales bare this out.

Intel continues to play a shell game and hasn't recaptured the Engineering lead.

Disney is in the same position. Marketing drives change rather then development. Buying proven technology from others replaces developing systems themselves.

Any company that has a core business that is creation whether widgets, movies, attractions must remain dedicated to that core business. Disney has abandoned their core compitency at every turn be it slashing Feature animation or decimating WDI (R&D) and letting the resorts managers dictate improvments and using off the shelf rides to do so. This isn't some remarkably incomprehensible thing. It's basic business.

 

[doubletrouble_vb]

this thread has drifted from the original topic...brother bear and a river ride in Canada.

I hope there is no BB or any other character tied in. I go to the World Showcase to see a little bit of the world not to see Disney Characters. As far as I can tell people with kids up in the WS are there for the same reason. Seeing a stylized bit of the world and for dinner. Not everything has be a gut wrenching escape to a fantasyland (and I love gut wrenching escapes to fantasy lands). I'd rather they did something along the lines of O Canada in a Splash Mountain. If there must be characters then leave them in FW...or in the case of BB...Animal Kingdom.

 

[SoCalKDG]

Since Disney doesn't release attenedence figures, those are obviously guesses. Good guesses, but what does it mean? Magic Kingdom saw around a 7% increase from 2003 to 2004 (AV specified 2005, so these numbers don't mean much, but that's that) What it doesn't tell me is Hotel bookings for Disney resorts or how the attendence for the other 3 parks is tracking.

All it says is that the Magic Kingdom is still gaining popularity. And even then, it could just mean that guests are spending more time there then in the other resorts. We also know that Animal Kingdom tracked very slightly up.

But again, the Point was about 2005 numbers and what Disney has been doing in 2005 (can anyone say free food) that suggests the numbers aren't as good.

Through the second QTY 2005 attendance is up about 4%, Per capita spending up 10% & room occupancy up 8%. This is pre free food plan.

http://corporate.disney.go.com/

Yes, WDW's attendance did well in '04, up I think 7.4% over '03. But its still below where it was in '00, '99 and even '98.

Meanwhile, the links you posted show Florida tourism is at record levels, not just higher than the year before, or higher than post 9/11. Hawaii is also on the verge of setting records, despite the fact that international arrivals are still well below 2000 levels.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/a...0/bz/bz01p.html

In 2000, Islands of Adventure & USF had 14.1 million attendance. In 2004, it was 13 million, a 7.8% loss. WDW was at 43.2 million, 2004 its at 40.5 million, a 6.2% loss.

Whats interesting is IOA & USF had 13 million in 2002, thus haven't moved since then while WDW was at 37.6 million, thus are up almost 10% since 2002. So while it may seem Florida is at record levels, recapturing the consumer dollar is showing more at WDW's then at its main competition.

Even more important is that WDW has changed strategy with the attempt of bringing in more money from its captured audience, which it is doing. With park attendance only accounting for 1/3 of revenue, WDW has increased in dramatic fashion the other 2/3 of it's revenue, rooms(approaching 90% occupancy) and spending(up 10%).

 

[SoCalKDG]

I like to try and think of these things in terms of industries that I am currently, or have worked in. From that perspective, I think Disney currently is similar to AMD pre-Athlon (for those of you that are PC NErds) Prior to Athlon, Amd made inferior or at best equivelent rpoduct to Intel, They tried to Market themselves into a better position then they actually had.

The Athlon represented a product that needed no marketing. It was simply designed top to bottom better then Intel's chips. Now with the exception of a siungle product here or there, Athlon represents the cutting edge of the market due to their dedication to the product not due to their marketing. Their improving sales bare this out.

Intel continues to play a shell game and hasn't recaptured the Engineering lead.

Disney is in the same position. Marketing drives change rather then development. Buying proven technology from others replaces developing systems themselves.

Two questions.

For this analogy to work, who would represent Intel?

Secondly, does signing deals with Pixar(if it happens) and the current deal with Siemans make up for a weaknesses in their development?

 

[YoHo]

It's the only weakness in that analogy. Intel is represented by Universal and every other draw on your vacation dollar. The problem is that I could have spun the analogy the opposite direction too. Disney is modern Intel relying on past success and marketing share to see them through.



Anyway, gotta a direct source on those number you posted?

 

[bicker]

what does that say about Disney's ability to compete moving into the future?

The best case scenario, for consumers, is that Disney will no longer be the only choice for what it offers. Competition is not necessarily ever a death sentence. However, competition does restrict how far a company can get from what the driving forces in the market want.

If Disney has this figured out, and have modernized their management systems for the better, why are they not keeping up?

"Keeping up" with regard to who's objectives? Disney had better not care about attendance -- Disney had better care about profits. To some extent, Disney might suffer from its tendancy to respect its sacred cows, something it must due because much of its customer base would react negatively to the company reinventing itself best structured for the future.

Disney's great advantage was that they provided things that people wanted (even if they didn't realize they wanted them) and that weren't provided by others. When the competition tried to catch up, Disney simply continued raising their OWN bar, rather than looking to meet some industry bar. That's what kept them ahead.

I don't see any evidence of that, at least as it pertains to the theme parks. Disney was the gold standard -- the only gold standard. Now they're not alone. Raising ones "own bar" when there is an insufficient market out there for the higher standards is bad management. Sometimes the only choices are to let the competition come up to your level or reinvent yourself as something different.

This isn't about "free quality" or other such catch terms I've seen thrown about. Its about understanding the core product and the primary drivers of the business. Why did DL and WDW become icons? Why did (and do) families consider the parks a must do, and some even make them a family tradition? These are the questions that have to be answered first and foremost. THEN you build the appropriate support and management systems.

Sounds good on paper, but the answer likely involves aspects of our society that no longer exist. The world has moved on, and the capacity to be an icon -- a long-lasting icon -- is on the decline. America behaves such that they foster flashes-in-the-pan, not long-lasting icons.

As an aside of sorts, if anything, Vegas has helped Disney in recent years in that they are not courting the family crowd any longer, at least not to the extent they were. This is clear from their "what happens in Vegas" ad campaign, as well as many of the changes at the resorts themselves. MGMs theme park is gone, Treasure Island's pirate adventure show now features showgirls, and the newer resorts like Wynn and The Venetian are clearly not targeting families.

Think about it: Why would they do that? They had a chance to really expand their market. Did they really decide to be nice to Disney and Universal? Of course not.

 

[DancingBear]

rooms(approaching 90% occupancy)

What's your source for this?

 

[DancingBear]

Disney had better not care about attendance -- Disney had better care about profits.

Yeah. It better care about profits in the long term. And in order to do so, it needs to not just be a brand, but to realize what makes the brand valuable in the first place.

To some extent, Disney might suffer from its tendancy to respect its sacred cows, something it must due because much of its customer base would react negatively to the company reinventing itself best structured for the future.

You've got it all wrong. The sacred cows ARE Disney. Look at what they're marketing. Princesses--Snow White, Cinderella, Belle. Disneyland's 50th. Disney is spending too much efforts on plundering the vaults and too little effort restocking.

That doesn't mean you have to keep Carousel of Progress open forever, but it does mean you should replace it with something that is just as marvelous in the 21st century as CoP was when it was first revealed. Nobody is saying Disney shouldn't do anything new, only that changes should be done within a strategic vision that retains and enhances the value of the brand for the long term.

There is no need for the company to "reinvent itself" in order to be "best structured for the future." That's not sentimentality, that's good fundamental business sense.

I don't see any evidence of that, at least as it pertains to the theme parks. Disney was the gold standard -- the only gold standard. Now they're not alone. Raising ones "own bar" when there is an insufficient market out there for the higher standards is bad management. Sometimes the only choices are to let the competition come up to your level or reinvent yourself as something different.

It's unclear to me what you are saying here. You seem to be making the assumption that the theme park market has been static, and so with increased competition Disney naturally suffers reduced market share. And so they need to do something different.

In fact, of course, the market has grown significantly (otherwise, why would all those competitors be popping up). There is more competition, but there are also more people, more spendable income, more leisure time, and more flights.

Disney doesn't need to reinvent itself to maintain market share, it needs to be better at what it does.

Sounds good on paper, but the answer likely involves aspects of our society that no longer exist. The world has moved on, and the capacity to be an icon -- a long-lasting icon -- is on the decline. America behaves such that they foster flashes-in-the-pan, not long-lasting icons.

Huh? Paris Hilton may be a flash-in-the-pan, but they just named the 57th James Bond.

I don't know if Buzz Lightyear will be an icon that my 5 yo will show to his son (the way that I show him Jungle Book, or Pinocchio), but I'd say he's got a much better chance than them cows from Home on the Range to be a meaningful figure in the Disney library for the long term. Disney should be about creating more Buzz Lightyears and Buzz Lightyear Space Ranger Spin rides and fewer Maggies (had to look that one up) and fewer Primeval Whirls.

Again, not for sentimental reasons, but for good fundamental business reasons.

 

[bicker]

You've got it all wrong. The sacred cows ARE Disney.

We'll just have to agree to disagree about that. There is a big difference between respecting the assets of a brand while the greatest utility out of them, and treating those assets them as "sacred cows". Boxing yourself into a corner is never a good idea in business.

Look at what they're marketing. Princesses--Snow White, Cinderella, Belle.

Have you noticed how Snow White's make-up and dress has changed?

changes should be done within a strategic vision that retains and enhances the value of the brand for the long term.

I couldn't agree more.

It's unclear to me what you are saying here. You seem to be making the assumption that the theme park market has been static, and so with increased competition Disney naturally suffers reduced market share.

Not at all. What I'm saying is that when you're operating in an environment with limited resources (which is always the case), it is easier to catch up to the leader than it is for the leader to maintain its distance in front of its competitors. Sometimes the ability to match competitors who are catching up, measure-for-measure, so as to keep that distance, is so prohibitively expensive as to be impractical -- i.e., the market is unwilling to bear that cost. That's when the only choice is to innovate -- offer something completely different, and thereby compete on another level or in another context. And companies that are steeped in tradition have a very hard time swallowing that pill.

In fact, of course, the market has grown significantly (otherwise, why would all those competitors be popping up).

The market has not grown as much as the competition has grown. There is a high cost of entry to the market, but once breached, the ability to eat into the leader's market share is, as I indicated earlier, readily attainable. Disney benefited from being the only one of its kind, for a long time. We're still adjusting to the Disnification of destination tourism, not just in Florida, not just in the United States, but in reality, worldwide. As a matter of fact, I see more criticisms of this trend than I see people clamoring for it.

Disney doesn't need to reinvent itself to maintain market share, it needs to be better at what it does.

What proof is there that "being better," as you would define that, will result in Disney maintaining its current distance in front of its competitors? Beyond that, what proof is there that the cost of "being better" will be the best use of Disney's limited assets, with regard to fostering long-term shareholder value? I'm not asking about your gut-feel -- I'm asking about what data shows that the available capital would be better invested in the direction you're suggesting. I understand if you don't have the data, but you'll understand, I hope, that data is critical to believing your assertions, to the extent that make such investments could be defensible to the owners of the company.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Bicker, I have to ask......and I ask this in a nice way with no intention to offend, but what is your knowledge base when it comes to Walt Disney, his history, why he built Disneyland, his progression through the world of animation, etc., etc.? It just seems to me that many of the things you say are the antithesis of what Walt thought and how Walt operated. Of course you may say how Walt thought and the way Walt operated is irrelevant to today's world, but you have nothing more than a "because I say so" on that and I disagree.

However, competition does restrict how far a company can get from what the driving forces in the market want.

I shudder to think where this world would be, much less whether The Walt Disney Company would even exist today, if there weren't visionaries who felt compelled to not let the driving forces of the market restrict their dreams and ambitions and stifle their creativity. Walt didn't give a fig about the driving forces in the market when he set the standards in animation or when he embarked on developing and building Disneyland. As Matt pointed out, Walt gave the market something it wasn't even looking for, and it was an unabashed success. As for competition itself, it can be a wonderful thing......but not if you let it guide you into a "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" mentality. Yes, stepping beyond the bounds of the driving forces of the market brings with it risk, but without risk there is little reward.

Disney had better not care about attendance -- Disney had better care about profits.

And how exactly would they take care of profits without caring about attendance? And how can they take care of attendance (i.e. continue to generate a market and following) if they didn't tend more to some of those sacred cows that have been sacrificed upon the altar of profit? Feature Animation, Imagineering......things that were critical to Walt but are an afterthought in The Walt Disney Company of today. No, Disney hasn't suffered from their tendancy to respect it's sacred cows. It's quite the opposite, actually. Those sacred cows that led to the cash cows that Disney is exploiting today are what should have been respected, and lack of respect for those has hurt this company immensely.

Raising ones "own bar" when there is an insufficient market out there for the higher standards is bad management. Sometimes the only choices are to let the competition come up to your level or reinvent yourself as something different.

Again, look to the history of Walt Disney. He didn't evaluate the sufficiency of the market when he set out to build Disneyland. He looked to his own wants and desires and built something that he felt was lacking in the market....not because the market showed sufficient desire, but because he intuitively saw a need that people didn't have a clue they had. He took a risk, and we are talking about it 50 years later. Stand idly by while the competition catches up and passes you? Respond to the competiton in reactive, as opposed to proactive, ways? I view that as bad management. Reinvention as the only means to otpace the competition....well, I'm not sure I agree with that. However, a little reinvention at The Walt Disney Company wouldn't be a bad thing. The only way I'll agree with you (and I use agree tenuously) is that things are different for the Walt Dinsey Company of today as they are held captive by the conventions of Wall Street. Not that they should be, but they are.

Sounds good on paper, but the answer likely involves aspects of our society that no longer exist.

Sorry, I just don't see that. If anything, today's society makes it more likely that greatness will be rewarded, not less. Consumers are very savvy in the world today, and they are very discriminating........and that means they are more likely, not less, to respond to something great. For the risk taker who is willing to give the public somehting great there is plenty of reward in todays society.....long lasting reward. Alas, it seems there are few risk takers today willing to give the people great things that cater to the core values in life, which have changed very little in the last 50 years.

 

[DisneyKidds]

it is easier to catch up to the leader than it is for the leader to maintain its distance in front of its competitors. Sometimes the ability to match competitors who are catching up, measure-for-measure, so as to keep that distance, is so prohibitively expensive as to be impractical -- i.e., the market is unwilling to bear that cost.

I don't disagree with you on this, but that doesn't mean that a leader should throw up their hands and relinquish their throne so easily. Really, do you think that The Walt Disney Company has put forth an honest effort over the past 15 years to even try and stay just a little bit ahead of the competition in the animation market? They've done a little better job in the theme park market, but much of thier activity was due to reactive forces within the company, and that is never an ideal situation. I agree, in today's world, especially given where Walt Disney started, it would be unrealistic for Disney to maintain the distance they had put between themselves and the competition, but to allow that gap to entirely disappear, or worse yet to find themselves on the other side of that gap from the new leaders.......that is unacceptable.

That's when the only choice is to innovate -- offer something completely different, and thereby compete on another level or in another context. And companies that are steeped in tradition have a very hard time swallowing that pill.

Yes, another level or in another context, but that doesn't have to mean another market. What is going to be the next great development in animation? Disney should have an eye toward that, rather than dismantling their animation capabilities. That's just one example. People won't have a problem with a company steeped in tradition being innovative, so long as that company stays true to it's core values that generated all that tradition in the first place. Disney has failed to do that.

 

[bicker]

what is your knowledge base

I'm a retired Big Six management consultant, who specialized in operations management for a variety of industries, including travel and hospitality.

It just seems to me that many of the things you say are the antithesis of what Walt thought and how Walt operated.

I rarely make comments about what Walt thought or how Walt operated, except to say that Roy was responsible for much of the financial success, especially as it pertained to the theme parks. Regardless, I don't get into the religious arguments about WWWD because they have no relevance to what is best for the owners of the Disney Company today.

I shudder to think where this world would be, much less whether The Walt Disney Company would even exist today, if there weren't visionaries who felt compelled to not let the driving forces of the market restrict their dreams and ambitions and stifle their creativity.

For every Walt Disney there were dozens of people with more vision and less success. Walt was distinctive because he was lucky, being both visionary and successful.

Walt didn't give a fig about the driving forces in the market

He had Roy for that!

And how exactly would they take care of profits without caring about attendance?

Read some of Disney's management's statements about their intended direction going forward. To a great extent, it relies on gaining more revenue from roughly the same number of guests, rather than increasing the number of guests. Sure, no one wants to lose customers, but if they have a choice between losing 10 customers worth $X in long-term shareholder value, and gaining 8 customers werth $X+Y in long-term shareholder value, then they're better off with the fewer number of customers.

And how can they take care of attendance (i.e. continue to generate a market and following) if they didn't tend more to some of those sacred cows that have been sacrificed upon the altar of profit?

I cannot be sure, because I'm not sure what you're saying, but I believe disagree with the premise of this question.

The only way I'll agree with you (and I use agree tenuously) is that things are different for the Walt Dinsey Company of today as they are held captive by the conventions of Wall Street. Not that they should be, but they are.

Yes, yes, yes. Disney must operate in the real world, not in some made up world we wished existed. In an ideal world, all the things you want I'd say would be best for the Disney company, but not in the real world.

Sorry, I just don't see that. If anything, today's society makes it more likely that greatness will be rewarded, not less.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Customers like to complain more, criticize more, but they aren't willing to put their money where their mouths are. These days, the market often rewards those suppliers who find a way to repackage something with a lower level of service, so they can charge a lower price.

 

[bicker]

DisneyKidds: I think that The Walt Disney Company has put forth an honest, and strong, effort over the past 15 years to stay just ahead of the competition in the market for destination resorts.

 

[DancingBear]

DisneyKidds: I think that The Walt Disney Company has put forth an honest, and strong, effort over the past 15 years to stay just ahead of the competition in the market for destination resorts.

How so?

 

[bicker]

I'm not sure I understand your question. Do you want me to list all the actions WDW management has made over the last 15 years? I'm sorry, but I just don't have that much time.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Bicker, I've put in my time in the consulting world and I get my E&Y Alumni letters as well, but you really didn't answer my question. I just think it is difficult to discern what will allow The Walt Disney Company, as steeped in tradition as it is, to be most successful without considering what made it so successful in the first place. It's not about what WWD today, it's about whether mamagement of today has learned, or should have learned, from that which came before them. Not that their hands should be tied by that, but to move forward without understanding what makes the company most successful at it's core...that is very dangerous.

Oh, and as for not answering questions, I like how you completely avoid the question regarding Disney's efforts in Feature Animation . How can anyone do that? THAT is what the whole company was built upon, and now it seems an afterthought.

Disney today puts the cart before the horse. They have done a better job on the destination resort front, but what drew people to the destination resort in the first place? Forget about that and your market for the destination resort is destined to begin to dry up.

All we have today are Roy's. Disney would be nothing today if the only Disney there was back then had an R before his name. What does that say for the future? Not a whole lot, I fear.

I cannot be sure, because I'm not sure what you're saying, but I believe disagree with the premise of this question.

Oh, I'm quite certain you do. What do you consider the sacred cows? Cindarella, Snow White, the Disney brand name, maybe a signature ride like Splash Mountain? I don't know.....you brought it up, so you tell me what you were referring to. Yes, these things generate profits and draw attendance. However, from where were these things born? Feature animation and WED/Walt Disney Imagineering. Without FA and WDI those things you probably consider the sacred cows wouldn't exist. Look at the ranks of feature animation and imagineering. These I consider the true sacred cows,and they have been decimated. Where will the next great character come from, the next great attraction? Long term success and profit hinges on these types of questions, and Disney is ill equiped to answer them.

Read some of Disney's management's statements about their intended direction going forward. To a great extent, it relies on gaining more revenue from roughly the same number of guests, rather than increasing the number of guests. Sure, no one wants to lose customers, but if they have a choice between losing 10 customers worth $X in long-term shareholder value, and gaining 8 customers werth $X+Y in long-term shareholder value, then they're better off with the fewer number of customers.

Heck, I guess I've become AV, too!! It seems Disney's current take on long term is the next four quarters, not the next quarter century.

These days, the market often rewards those suppliers who find a way to repackage something with a lower level of service, so they can charge a lower price.

Sure, if I'm looking to buy an MP3 player......but not when I'm looking to use my valuable resources (vacation time and discretionary dollars) to spend quality time with my family. I just don't agree that the WalMart model suits Disney very well. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one as well.

 

[DancingBear]

Not at all. What I'm saying is that when you're operating in an environment with limited resources (which is always the case), it is easier to catch up to the leader than it is for the leader to maintain its distance in front of its competitors. Sometimes the ability to match competitors who are catching up, measure-for-measure, so as to keep that distance, is so prohibitively expensive as to be impractical -- i.e., the market is unwilling to bear that cost. That's when the only choice is to innovate -- offer something completely different, and thereby compete on another level or in another context. And companies that are steeped in tradition have a very hard time swallowing that pill.

Let's take your first sentence as a truism; that is, a smaller competitor can always eat somewhat into the market share of the market leader. As Kidds points out, that doesn't mean that the leader just says, "Oh, well, my core business now has competitors, my only option is to to abandon this market and try to enter another."

The phrase "innovate--offer something completely different, and thereby compete on another level or in another context" is just buzz. First, whatever innovation you are coming up with, chances are there are competitors in that market also. And assuming you can find some other level or context that is not occupied, then you have the high risk associated with throwing money into those innovations.

And, anyway, are you really claiming that Disney has been trying to compete on another level or in another context? How so, in terms of what YoHo and Another Voice are complaining about? They're not complaining about Disney creating a successful cruise line, they're complaining about Disney abandoning Feature Animation.

What proof is there that "being better," as you would define that, will result in Disney maintaining its current distance in front of its competitors? Beyond that, what proof is there that the cost of "being better" will be the best use of Disney's limited assets, with regard to fostering long-term shareholder value? I'm not asking about your gut-feel -- I'm asking about what data shows that the available capital would be better invested in the direction you're suggesting. I understand if you don't have the data, but you'll understand, I hope, that data is critical to believing your assertions, to the extent that make such investments could be defensible to the owners of the company.

As you do regularly, you act as if only the others are making assertions, which they must prove to you with data. Where is your data to support these assertions:

It is easier to catch up to the leader than it is for the leader to maintain its distance in front of its competitors.

Sometimes the ability to match competitors who are catching up, measure-for-measure, so as to keep that distance, is so prohibitively expensive as to be impractical -- i.e., the market is unwilling to bear that cost.

That's when the only choice is to innovate.

Companies that are steeped in tradition have a very hard time swallowing that pill.

The market has not grown as much as the competition has grown.

There is a high cost of entry to the market, but once breached, the ability to eat into the leader's market share is, as I indicated earlier, readily attainable.

The world has moved on, and the capacity to be an icon -- a long-lasting icon -- is on the decline. America behaves such that they foster flashes-in-the-pan, not long-lasting icons.

Roy was responsible for much of the financial success, especially as it pertained to the theme parks.

You're making "unproveable" observations, as is everyone else. No to mention that I'm sure there were management consultants with reams of data to support every monstrously bad business decision major US companies have made. Let's get past the "where's your data" game and get on with the discussion.

 

[DancingBear]

I'm not sure I understand your question. Do you want me to list all the actions WDW management has made over the last 15 years? I'm sorry, but I just don't have that much time.

Leaving aside the hypocrisy involved in your demanding data from others and then posting the above, the question is what are the acts of innovation in the last 15 years that you think show that Disney is being creatively managed to stay ahead of the game for the long term.

 

[DancingBear]

Customers like to complain more, criticize more, but they aren't willing to put their money where their mouths are. These days, the market often rewards those suppliers who find a way to repackage something with a lower level of service, so they can charge a lower price.

Yes, the market "often rewards" Wal-Mart. But customers shopping at Nordstrom, or buying I-Pods, also put their money where their mouths are. Should Disney try to be more like Wal-Mart or Nordstrom? Should its competitors in making animated movies be trying to copy Disney or Pixar?

 

[bicker]

Bicker, I've put in my time in the consulting world and I get my E&Y Alumni letters as well, but you really didn't answer my question.

I'm sorry. Perhaps you can explain better what specific information you're interested in.

I just think it is difficult to discern what will allow The Walt Disney Company, as steeped in tradition as it is, to be most successful without considering what made it so successful in the first place.

Of course, but see how the question has gone from my objection to treating things as "sacred cows" to your statement here about "considering" these things. See the difference? "Sacred" versus "considering"?

It's not about what WWD today, it's about whether mamagement of today has learned, or should have learned, from that which came before them.

However, that applies to not only what there is to learn from the history of the Disney Company, but also from the history of all companies. It is fundamentally critical for the management of Disney's competitors to learn from the history of the Disney Company, too -- perhaps as much if not more so than Disney's own managrment.

Not that their hands should be tied by that

Which is what a sacred cow is all about.

but to move forward without understanding what makes the company most successful at it's core...that is very dangerous.

Just keep in mind that as times change, sometimes what makes a company most successful "at its core" must change as well.

Oh, and as for not answering questions, I like how you completely avoid the question regarding Disney's efforts in Feature Animation .

If I have anything interesting to say about the business of feature animation, I'll contribute it. However, since my expertise is in operations management, and with regard to travel and hospitality, and I'm not an industry expert in the business of feature animation, it is rather unlikely that I'll put my perspective forward. I'll leave that to the professional producers and artists in our midst (or their management consultants ). If I were to contribute something in that realm, I'd probably say something like, "I wish they made movies more like xxx." "I wish they would..." versus "They should..." See the difference? Keep in mind, I'm here on the DIS to enjoy myself discussing Disney theme parks and help others enjoy their own Disney theme park vacations -- not to engage in discussions that I have no interest in. By the same token, I wouldn't agree with someone who asserts that folks shouldn't come into a thread that was about theme parks, specifically about a new water attraction in Epcot, and hijack the thread to start a discussion about feature animation. This is a public board, and these threads do tend to drift and there are often multiple discussions that stem from a single original message. That's one of the charms of this place. So please continue discussing feature animation along with our discussion of the theme parks, but please understand that I'll be skipping over those parts, just like I skip over the sports pages in the newspaper.

All we have today are Roy's.

At least some of the folks my colleages and I met at WDW were in no way "Roy's". I'm sorry you've not met any of these wonderful, creative people.

It seems Disney's current take on long term is the next four quarters, not the next quarter century.

Like it or not, if you don't survive the next year, you won't be around 25 years from now. Successfully managing a business involves making the choice that are correct for the long-term AND correct for now.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one as well.

Yup! However, I've found that quite often people aren't disagreeing with me as much as expressing outrage that the system works the way I'm describing. Keep in mind that most of everything I've said with regard to business I wish it didn't work that way. This goes back to operating in the real world, rather than in the world of our own fabrication.